secobserve-mcp

Pull Findings From Configured API

secobserve_api_import

Import security findings from a configured upstream API into SecObserve, attaching them to a branch and service. Returns counts of new, updated, and resolved observations.

Instructions

Pull findings into SecObserve from an upstream API it already has credentials for.

The credentials, base URL and parser come from an API configuration stored on the product; list them with secobserve_list(resource="api_configurations"). The call blocks while SecObserve fetches and parses, so it can take a while.

Args: params (ApiImportInput): Validated input containing: - api_configuration_id (Optional[int]) or api_configuration_name (Optional[str]): exactly one. - branch_id (Optional[int]) with the id form, or branch_name (Optional[str]) with the name form; a named branch is created if missing. - service (Optional[str]): Service to attach findings to. - docker_image_name_tag / endpoint_url (Optional[str]): origin metadata.

Returns: str: observations_new, observations_updated and observations_resolved as reported by the API, one per line.

Examples: - Use when: "refresh findings from our Dependency Track project" -> api_configuration_name="dtrack-portal", branch_name="main" - Use when: scripted re-import after an upstream scan -> api_configuration_id=5 - Don't use when: you have the report file locally (use secobserve_upload_file).

Error Handling: 400 means the upstream call or parse failed -- the message carries the upstream error. A timeout does not mean the import failed: check secobserve_list(resource="vulnerability_checks") before retrying, or raise SECOBSERVE_TIMEOUT.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`params`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2Sep 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses that the call blocks while SecObserve fetches and parses, that a timeout does not mean failure, and how to verify success (check secobserve_list(resource='vulnerability_checks')). It also explains error semantics (400 means upstream call/parse failed). Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those flags.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Examples, Error Handling) and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place: the blocking behavior, the id/name exclusivity, the timeout guidance, and the sibling distinction are all high-value. It is longer than average but justified by the tool's complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with one nested parameter object, no output schema details beyond a string return, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It covers prerequisites (API configuration stored on the product), how to list them, blocking behavior, error handling, and retry guidance. An agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: it explains the api_configuration_id/name exclusivity, the branch_id/branch_name form distinction, that a named branch is created if missing, and the purpose of service and origin metadata fields. It doesn't enumerate every field in the same detail as the schema, but it adds the critical semantic constraints (exactly one of id/name) that the schema alone doesn't make explicit.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Pull findings into SecObserve') and resource ('from an upstream API it already has credentials for'), and distinguishes it from the sibling secobserve_upload_file by explicitly saying 'Don't use when: you have the report file locally'. This makes the tool's purpose and scope immediately clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit when-to-use examples ('refresh findings from our Dependency Track project', 'scripted re-import after an upstream scan') and an explicit when-not-to-use with the alternative (secobserve_upload_file). It also tells the agent how to discover available API configurations via secobserve_list(resource='api_configurations'). This is exemplary usage guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server